Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
we can build it locally - subs aren't like skimmers where you can do the hull and retrofit later.
eg the entire combat area in collins is a plug that had to be designed and inserted and then the hull finished off.
we either do the whole lot here - or the whole lot there. (and for a number of reasons, we can't do the whole lot there)
any half baked shared construction is an invitation to grief.
if we do the whole lot there then we need to reconsider fitout
You can almost 100% guarantee that any warships built for the navy will be built in Australia ... at least in part.
It is just too vital for the Australia shipbuilding industry to do otherwise.
I couldn't see either political party really having the courage to do it ... plus it generally gives them good publicity. Any newspaper stories covering the recent delivery of the LPD hull invariably mention how much work will be provided to the local industry. Imagine the negative ... possibly election losing news coverage a story about local ship yards closing down, while a $36 billion ship building contract goes to Japan would receive.
It is just too vital for the Australia shipbuilding industry to do otherwise.
I couldn't see either political party really having the courage to do it ... plus it generally gives them good publicity. Any newspaper stories covering the recent delivery of the LPD hull invariably mention how much work will be provided to the local industry. Imagine the negative ... possibly election losing news coverage a story about local ship yards closing down, while a $36 billion ship building contract goes to Japan would receive.
I'm sure that this has been covered before, but the consensus at the time seemed to be an extended Collins design, with Japanese propulsion and power generation.
I guess a licensed build of Soryu class isn't out of the question either, but it would need to be modified to accommodate our preferred combat system.
I guess a licensed build of Soryu class isn't out of the question either, but it would need to be modified to accommodate our preferred combat system.
the road runner
Active Member
This article sums it up pretty well i think
Australia
1)If we go for an Collins 2 it will take time and more money in the long run to design and develop.
2)If we go for a Soryu with a US combat system it would take less time but may benefit both the Japanese and Australian Navy's by working on a partnership while both navy's pay for the development of newer models.
I am starting to think option 2 would be a wise choice?
Australia
1)If we go for an Collins 2 it will take time and more money in the long run to design and develop.
2)If we go for a Soryu with a US combat system it would take less time but may benefit both the Japanese and Australian Navy's by working on a partnership while both navy's pay for the development of newer models.
I am starting to think option 2 would be a wise choice?
sweet mary mother and joseph
that article was awful.
quoting the astutes as a nuke option demonstrates how much they don't know about those subs
the road runner
Active Member
That's why i asked this forum,you guys always set us uninformed people straight.Agreed about nukes being ruled out.
I was of the opinion it would be a selection between a Collins 2 or a Soryu.
Thank you gf
I was of the opinion it would be a selection between a Collins 2 or a Soryu.
Thank you gf
I'm struggling to maintain optimism on subs because the 2 major parties have turned them into a political football
in fact the collins is a cogent lesson in media studies and social anthropology of how persistent bad news embeds in the publics mind that the subs are stuffed.
Unfort both sides of politics have had too much oxygen generated to walk away ands actually have serious debate
so, we won't get 12
we will dick around for so long on trying to keep everyone happy in industry and vulnerable seats that the only viable option will be to get them built overseas if we want them in the "proper" timeframe - and that won't happen because its a political grenade.
I've been to enough SIA meetings to know that commercial interest has more advocates than building and buying the right platform in the timeframe we actually need it to avoid the capability vacuum
So a Soryu then?
What about a license build?
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
If by chance we did go nuclear, besides the combat system what’s the matter with Astute?
OK guys, just to nip this in the bud and clarify what my original post was about !!
First, the problem is We (Australia) are not a nuclear country, does not matter if reactors are fuelled for the life of the hull or not, this option will not happen, and the subs DO NOT suit what we are after in a sub, no if's, but's, maybe's. No matter what Mr White and Barbage try to say
The original intent of my post was more if anyone had heard any more updates on the visits between Japanese Navy and our follow on visit, this is the option where there seems to be the most action out of the project office, so either Soryu, or as pointed out, their follow on class by the time we are ready, or a Collins Mk II with the Japanese running gear.
Euro options are out, but as mentioned by GF .......... The Government of the day hey
Did not mean to drag all this up again, was just a general question on how these visits went ? If anyone is able to comment in the public
Cheers
First, the problem is We (Australia) are not a nuclear country, does not matter if reactors are fuelled for the life of the hull or not, this option will not happen, and the subs DO NOT suit what we are after in a sub, no if's, but's, maybe's. No matter what Mr White and Barbage try to say
The original intent of my post was more if anyone had heard any more updates on the visits between Japanese Navy and our follow on visit, this is the option where there seems to be the most action out of the project office, so either Soryu, or as pointed out, their follow on class by the time we are ready, or a Collins Mk II with the Japanese running gear.
Euro options are out, but as mentioned by GF .......... The Government of the day hey
Did not mean to drag all this up again, was just a general question on how these visits went ? If anyone is able to comment in the public
Cheers
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I found the focus of this recent article in APDR Magazine quiet interesting.
THE SENATE AND SEA 1000 ON A POINT OF ORDER | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Like a lot of others here, I am very interested in seeing the final outcome of SEA 1000, but have so little knowledge that any comment I make will be totally uneducated and appear to be stupid.
So I am very interested to get the opinions of GF and others who are far more in the know than me.
Firstly is the article accurate? Is it balanced? Or is it just the author’s opinion, the old saying “opinions are like a-holes, everybody’s got one!” comes to mind.
Getting back to the article, rather than focusing on this or that submarine design to be the solution, the focus was more on the fact that the combat systems, weapons, sensors and other weapons systems are being “locked” in at a very early stage and what impact those decisions will have on the final design chosen.
It’s a bit of a long read (see link above), but I’ll quote some of the interesting paragraphs, in italic, below:
The idea of selecting a submarine combat system and wrapping a pressure hull around it is a seriously flawed approach. It is not what happened in the case of the AWD. In the AWD project the Aegis system was selected and the ship was down-selected to one that already had Aegis fitted.
This path makes no sense in the context of the USN’s submarine combat system suite because it is only fitted to USN nuclear powered submarines - the only thing that thus far been explicitly ruled out for Australia’s future submarines.
If Defence were to select the US Combat System in 2013, the first of the four submarine options under consideration - an existing submarine design available off-the-shelf, modified only to meet Australia’s regulatory requirements – by simple definition would be eliminated.
Option two - an existing off-the-shelf design modified to incorporate Australia’s specific requirements, including in relation to combat systems and weapons – would also be eliminated on account of the comment above about the increasing interdependence between sub-systems of the USN submarine combat system and weight, space and power issues discussed below. It won’t fit!
Option three – an evolved design that enhances the capabilities of existing off-the-shelf designs, including the Collins Class or an entirely new developmental submarine – is even questionable. The 3400 tonne Collins Class submarine already struggles with respect to the weight, space and power requirements of the US system that has been shoehorned into it. It is not unreasonable, for example, to presume that the power load requirements of a total US combat system would be of the order 100 KWs greater than the power requirements of a combat system optimised for conventional submarines and would thus substantially impact on the submarine’s indiscretion ratio and radius of action.
There is risk that option four - an entirely new developmental submarine – at or around 4000 tonnes - would also fail to muster the puff necessary to operate a full USN submarine combat system.
So if all of the above is accurate (based on locking in the full USN submarine combat, sensor, weapon systems, etc), why even bother to have options 1 and 2 at all? Which leaves options 3 and 4.
Option 4, to me at least in size of the boat, points to a submarine that is probably not unlike the current Japanese boat. And even then, based on the claims in the article, a boat of that size would still struggle to generate enough power to run the full combat, weapon and sensor systems.
It seems, according to the article, the only guaranteed way to power all components of the combat system is to have it come complete with USN nuclear powered submarine.
Which as we all know isn’t going to happen unless there is a massive change of policy by the Government to include nuclear as an option.
Anyway, have a read and give me your opinions.
THE SENATE AND SEA 1000 ON A POINT OF ORDER | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Like a lot of others here, I am very interested in seeing the final outcome of SEA 1000, but have so little knowledge that any comment I make will be totally uneducated and appear to be stupid.
So I am very interested to get the opinions of GF and others who are far more in the know than me.
Firstly is the article accurate? Is it balanced? Or is it just the author’s opinion, the old saying “opinions are like a-holes, everybody’s got one!” comes to mind.
Getting back to the article, rather than focusing on this or that submarine design to be the solution, the focus was more on the fact that the combat systems, weapons, sensors and other weapons systems are being “locked” in at a very early stage and what impact those decisions will have on the final design chosen.
It’s a bit of a long read (see link above), but I’ll quote some of the interesting paragraphs, in italic, below:
The idea of selecting a submarine combat system and wrapping a pressure hull around it is a seriously flawed approach. It is not what happened in the case of the AWD. In the AWD project the Aegis system was selected and the ship was down-selected to one that already had Aegis fitted.
This path makes no sense in the context of the USN’s submarine combat system suite because it is only fitted to USN nuclear powered submarines - the only thing that thus far been explicitly ruled out for Australia’s future submarines.
If Defence were to select the US Combat System in 2013, the first of the four submarine options under consideration - an existing submarine design available off-the-shelf, modified only to meet Australia’s regulatory requirements – by simple definition would be eliminated.
Option two - an existing off-the-shelf design modified to incorporate Australia’s specific requirements, including in relation to combat systems and weapons – would also be eliminated on account of the comment above about the increasing interdependence between sub-systems of the USN submarine combat system and weight, space and power issues discussed below. It won’t fit!
Option three – an evolved design that enhances the capabilities of existing off-the-shelf designs, including the Collins Class or an entirely new developmental submarine – is even questionable. The 3400 tonne Collins Class submarine already struggles with respect to the weight, space and power requirements of the US system that has been shoehorned into it. It is not unreasonable, for example, to presume that the power load requirements of a total US combat system would be of the order 100 KWs greater than the power requirements of a combat system optimised for conventional submarines and would thus substantially impact on the submarine’s indiscretion ratio and radius of action.
There is risk that option four - an entirely new developmental submarine – at or around 4000 tonnes - would also fail to muster the puff necessary to operate a full USN submarine combat system.
So if all of the above is accurate (based on locking in the full USN submarine combat, sensor, weapon systems, etc), why even bother to have options 1 and 2 at all? Which leaves options 3 and 4.
Option 4, to me at least in size of the boat, points to a submarine that is probably not unlike the current Japanese boat. And even then, based on the claims in the article, a boat of that size would still struggle to generate enough power to run the full combat, weapon and sensor systems.
It seems, according to the article, the only guaranteed way to power all components of the combat system is to have it come complete with USN nuclear powered submarine.
Which as we all know isn’t going to happen unless there is a massive change of policy by the Government to include nuclear as an option.
Anyway, have a read and give me your opinions.
Reading that, sounds like someone if rather fond of the S-80, I wonder how much advertising Navantia does with them ?
I don't really know, others may be able to answer, he also harps on about the Mk48 and how many other nations are getting it, but as I understand it, they will all be getting the export version, Only Aus and the US have the full version of the Mk48, as it was co-developed by both countries. Not sure if this makes a difference in what is required for the full version, I also believe (GF may be able to clear this up) that we also had an investment/vested interest in the USN Combat System.
Also find it a bit funny that he has no problems with selecting the Aegis System for the AWD's but using the same rationale for Sea 1000 does not wash with him, hey hang on a second, it was Navantia's F-100 that was selected and won ? Wonder how their advertising budget is looking ?
I do recall numerous articles from APDR over the last 12 months favouring the S-80, so just seems to be a common theme from them, and a bit of re-direction about ruling out Euro MOTS Subs, does not seem to understand the fact that th Euro's just don't cut it ! Not saying the Euro's are no good, just not what we need, they just don't stack up
I don't really know, others may be able to answer, he also harps on about the Mk48 and how many other nations are getting it, but as I understand it, they will all be getting the export version, Only Aus and the US have the full version of the Mk48, as it was co-developed by both countries. Not sure if this makes a difference in what is required for the full version, I also believe (GF may be able to clear this up) that we also had an investment/vested interest in the USN Combat System.
Also find it a bit funny that he has no problems with selecting the Aegis System for the AWD's but using the same rationale for Sea 1000 does not wash with him, hey hang on a second, it was Navantia's F-100 that was selected and won ? Wonder how their advertising budget is looking ?
I do recall numerous articles from APDR over the last 12 months favouring the S-80, so just seems to be a common theme from them, and a bit of re-direction about ruling out Euro MOTS Subs, does not seem to understand the fact that th Euro's just don't cut it ! Not saying the Euro's are no good, just not what we need, they just don't stack up
t68
Well-Known Member
I know we are not getting nuclear powered submarines; it was more of what are the design limitations of Astute over Virginia class submarine in a RAN operational perspective. Both Collins and Astute class had troubled beginning but with American help seem to have gotten over them.it just seemed that GF rebuke of the Astute class seemed a bit strange and that all is still not well with the submarine just wondering what the problem is.OK guys, just to nip this in the bud and clarify what my original post was about !!
First, the problem is We (Australia) are not a nuclear country, does not matter if reactors are fuelled for the life of the hull or not, this option will not happen, and the subs DO NOT suit what we are after in a sub, no if's, but's, maybe's. No matter what Mr White and Barbage try to say
The original intent of my post was more if anyone had heard any more updates on the visits between Japanese Navy and our follow on visit, this is the option where there seems to be the most action out of the project office, so either Soryu, or as pointed out, their follow on class by the time we are ready, or a Collins Mk II with the Japanese running gear.
Euro options are out, but as mentioned by GF .......... The Government of the day hey
Did not mean to drag all this up again, was just a general question on how these visits went ? If anyone is able to comment in the public
Cheers
That’s if he can without a CLM.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks mate,Reading that, sounds like someone if rather fond of the S-80, I wonder how much advertising Navantia does with them ?
I don't really know, others may be able to answer, he also harps on about the Mk48 and how many other nations are getting it, but as I understand it, they will all be getting the export version, Only Aus and the US have the full version of the Mk48, as it was co-developed by both countries. Not sure if this makes a difference in what is required for the full version, I also believe (GF may be able to clear this up) that we also had an investment/vested interest in the USN Combat System.
Also find it a bit funny that he has no problems with selecting the Aegis System for the AWD's but using the same rationale for Sea 1000 does not wash with him, hey hang on a second, it was Navantia's F-100 that was selected and won ? Wonder how their advertising budget is looking ?
I do recall numerous articles from APDR over the last 12 months favouring the S-80, so just seems to be a common theme from them, and a bit of re-direction about ruling out Euro MOTS Subs, does not seem to understand the fact that th Euro's just don't cut it ! Not saying the Euro's are no good, just not what we need, they just don't stack up
Yes I saw the pro S-80 references in another of the APDR articles too, hence my question first up on balance and accuracy.
The words "APA" and "Goon Squad" always rings in my ears when I read things sometimes!!
Still I thought it was interesting to see a focus on the combat and weapon systems and how, if true according to the article, that affects the selection process.
I'd still like to know if the claims are an exaggeration (maybe because of the reasons you mentioned) or if they are reasonably fair and accurate.
At the end of the day the government have already delayed things for too long to permit a sensible domestic project to be conducted with any real chance of meeting the projected timeline. Had they followed straight on from the last white paper as intended we would be in with a chance of making it work, unfortunately the delay that has resulted from Ms Gillards mismanagement of everything means any workable option will be late, perhaps too late.
at the risk of being oblique again
the articles premise that you shouldn't build around the combat system at first cut seems sound - but it gets back to what is the capability requirement?
I've been to a number of SIA events - and at the last the good RADM pointedly said to industry (and I'll paraphrase as there was a media lockout) - "its not your job to tell us how to design a sub, we know what we need our business is about sub warfare - yours is about assisting us"
quoting the AWD as an example is also not a good idea - esp as it was not the vessel that was wanted - despite the fact that everyone now just nods and gets on with the collegiate "we love out new AWD choice"
as V has said, we've already had the proper timeline screwed - so whatever we do from this point on will be a reactive choice.
apart from the fact that the references re power generation ignore the fact that we can now generate twice as much power in half the footprint - and that if you want a decent combat system - it requires power.
Large conventionals are not just about range - its about their ISR capability - and for that you need juice.
the articles premise that you shouldn't build around the combat system at first cut seems sound - but it gets back to what is the capability requirement?
I've been to a number of SIA events - and at the last the good RADM pointedly said to industry (and I'll paraphrase as there was a media lockout) - "its not your job to tell us how to design a sub, we know what we need our business is about sub warfare - yours is about assisting us"
quoting the AWD as an example is also not a good idea - esp as it was not the vessel that was wanted - despite the fact that everyone now just nods and gets on with the collegiate "we love out new AWD choice"
as V has said, we've already had the proper timeline screwed - so whatever we do from this point on will be a reactive choice.
apart from the fact that the references re power generation ignore the fact that we can now generate twice as much power in half the footprint - and that if you want a decent combat system - it requires power.
Large conventionals are not just about range - its about their ISR capability - and for that you need juice.
My only surprise in all of this is the fact that the Japanese are not using an American Combat System in their submarines. If they are not, it is probably for the good reason that they have designed a better one for their purposes. One we should have a good look at. After all we know any American Combat System would have been primarily designed for use in a nuke, and would have stronger power requirements than a non-nuke sub is likely to provide.
Ozymandias
Banned Member
*yawn* this is the attitude why I got out of the industry. It makes me happy that I never have to speak to DMO ever again.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status